Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 18:02

( - promoted by Matt Stoller)

And it only took a week until the conservative movement, in the form of a conservative fatwa (posted by David Corn) by Michael Reagan, began to discuss the possible impeachment of Obama. Corn highlights Reagan's command to the conservative movement that right-wingers expose Democratic leaders' "sexual flings" they will certainly attempt to cover up, but I'm more intrigued by his call for impeachments and censures in general. Here's the son of Reagan, in all his glory.

With the Democrats back in power in both Congress and the White House, you KNOW that they'll be falling right back into their habits of taking lobbyists' money under the table, trading votes for campaign contributions, spying on and sabotaging Republican legislative plans, covering up their leaders' sexual "flings," and spending taxpayer money on personal expenses like never before. But this time, YOU AND I will be there every step of the way, making sure that no stone is left unturned, every dark corner is filled with light, and every illegal act is paid for with censure, impeachment, recalls, investigations, and jail time for every criminal we expose in Washington, D.C.

Reagan is basically giving the playbook for the conservative movement, which is to kick up dust, accuse everyone associated with Obama of sexual misconduct, personal corruption, pay-to-play politics, and lobbyist ties, and then call for impeachments and investigations. And this isn't some loon. Reagan's not only the (adopted) son of a former President, he's a conservative pundit with, well probably not a million listeners but a good number. And he's a well-received citizen of the DC establishment, taking the blame the media narrative to an remarkably audacious level. Though he's called CNN the Terrorist News Network, Reagan appeared on Larry King as recently as October to appear opposite Robert Kennedy Jr, and he has refused to appear on MSNBC because he claims he receives death threats, or so he said at an exclusive party for television industry executives at the Beverly Hills Hotel.

Anyone who thinks that the left is somehow equivalent to the right in terms of its commitment to anti-democratic norms is wrong. The left is passionate but ultimately respectful, the right does not believe that a Democratic President should be opposed through normal constitutional channels since Democrats are by their very nature criminals. It's almost a bit embarrassing; those on our side who claimed Bush should be impeached were roundly and are still roundly mocked by most Democratic leaders, even after eight years of radical lawless policies and torture planned by high level Bush officials in the White House. And yet, today, a conservative movement icon has called for impeachments of unnamed Democrats (though we can assume Obama is one of them), and the new administration hasn't even named a single cabinet member to even go through Senate confirmation, let alone taken office.

Now I'm not saying that post-partisanship isn't a nice concept, but I'm also not sure these folks want Obama to have a traditional Presidential honeymoon.

there are still many wingnuts who swear Vince Foster was assassinated at the behest of the Clintons, instead of killing himself.

The Democrats could elect Mother Teresa to the presidency and the GOP would immediately jump in and start smearing her. If there aren't any personal scandals, then they will simply make smears up out of whole cloth and din them into the public consciousness.

What's with the weird parenthetical reference to Michael Reagan as "adopted." Does the fact that Ronald Reagan was not Michael's biological father make him less credible as a right wing mouthpiece? Does it make him less human? I may be picking nits, but when others talk/write about my daughters' support for Obama, the fact that they were adopted by their Obama-supporting parents isn't used as a parenthetical way to dismiss their views (at least not among the "open left" and the "open minded).

if the cons are going to go down the same old road by being the extreme opposition and throwing lies and half truths against the wall in the hopes of sabotaging the obama admin from being successful, i believe this a a good thing for the dems and their prospects of increasing their numbers in congress, if they think this election is a mandate wait until they see future cycles if they are seen to be obstructing progress in america, go ahead repugs take your best shot, you ain't seen nothin yet.

Better to have them in full-on opposition mode, out in the open where you can see them. If nothing else it gives us someone to blame when things don't work out, and makes it easier to draw a sharp contrast when 2012 rolls around.

A large part of why Republicans were able to kick up so much dirt during Clinton's presidency was that they could hold hearings and conduct investigations through Congress. They made full use of that, going after all sorts of ridiculous stuff, which inevitably led to media coverage and attention. Being in the minority makes that quite a bit harder.

Of course, Clinton did have Dem majorities for his first two years before losing Congress, but Obama will have at least that long to push forward without Congressional Republicans being able to do much to distract the country from his agenda. Almost certainly longer, since there's no way the House is swinging all the way back to the Republicans in 2010.

Bomb-throwers like Reagan will do what they can to fling crap against the wall, but without any concentrated way of dictating news cycles, they'll have a tough time getting a critical mass of people to pay attention to them.

Bomb-throwers like Reagan will do what they can to fling crap against the wall, but without any concentrated way of dictating news cycles, they'll have a tough time getting a critical mass of people to pay attention to them.

I remember 1992, and there's really no comparison. Clinton won, but he won, in part, because of Perot. Moreover, the conservative movement had just started to jell, and Rush Limbaugh and others were starting to take over the airwaves.

This time around, Obama was elected six to seven percentage points, over 52% of the vote. The conservative movement is now falling apart, with the liberals and progressives dominating the internet.

The other thing is, people either liked Clinton, or hated Clinton, but they all knew what his flaws were. With Obama, people either like him, think he's not ready, or think he's a Muslim. Whatever hatred is more of a fear of the unknown.

Lastly, where Clinton dealt with a Congress whose leadership had seen Presidents come and go (and Congress remaining the same), the Congressional leadership is still feeling its way. So unlike the Congressional leadership of 1992, Pelosi and Reid know they can lose their majority status.

So, while the Right will try to do to Obama what they did to Clinton, they're going to find the going to be much, much harder.

taking lobbyists' money under the table, trading votes for campaign contributions, spying on and sabotaging Republican legislative plans, covering up their leaders' sexual "flings," and spending taxpayer money on personal expenses like never before.

The left is passionate but ultimately respectful, the right does not believe that a Democratic President should be opposed through normal constitutional channels since Democrats are by their very nature criminals.

Isn't impeachment a "normal constitutional channel"? Of course it's going to be rather difficult for them to investigate, censure, or impeach anybody when they are in the minority in Congress by a wide margin. I guess this is the platform they hope to run on in the 2010 mid-terms. Good luck with that.

As the father of two children we were blessed with though the adoption process, I found the reference to Michael Reagan's status as an adopted child to be an offensive non sequitur.
There are plenty of ways of creating a family these days. How a child came to be in a family is irrelevant. Families happen because those children were meant to be with those parents, by whatever mechanism. You wouldn't say "the (fertilized in vitro) son of a former President" or "the (surrogate-born) son of a former President." And you certainly wouldn't say it in the vaguely disparaging manner adoption was brought into this post.
How this got written and posted at a supposedly socially enlightened site is beyond me.